encrypt_txt_record

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only says 'encrypt' and gives the purpose, but does not mention the encryption algorithm, whether it is reversible, what the output format is, or any potential side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that takes an input and returns a value.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two concise sentences that front-load the primary action and purpose. It contains no filler or repetition, making it easy to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter tool, the description explains the purpose adequately, but the lack of any information about the return value is a notable omission, especially since there is no output schema. The agent knows what it encrypts but not what it receives in return.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already describes the 'input' parameter as 'The value to encrypt (e.g., an email address)'. The tool description adds context by connecting it to TXT records and forwarding addresses, enriching the parameter's meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Encrypt'), the resource ('TXT record value'), and the domain ('for use in DNS'). It also implies a specific use case ('forwarding addresses in DNS records'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that manage domains, aliases, or email records.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides a clear context: encoding forwarding addresses for DNS TXT records. Although it does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, the tool is unique among siblings, and the intended use case is evident.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.